Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[spina1953]

After reading post #52, I wanted to make this comment: If an Ecumencil Council is the supreme authority in the Church and not the Bishop of Rome, then why would have Jesus say in Matthew 16 " I for my part declare to you, you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… " If as it was posted that an Ecumencil Council has the supreme authority, one would have thought that Jesus would have said instead He would build His Church on the rock of the Apostles instead of on Peter and Jesus would have said I entrust the keys of the Kingdsom of Heaven to all of you Apostles. If I were reading this passage in Matthew’s Gospel for the first time, there is no questoion of what the author of Matthew intended and meant for his readers to understand and the meaning he wished to convey to the reader. That is Jesus was speaking to Peter only telling Peter he was going to be the Rock in which He (Jesus) is going to build His Church, and He(Jesus) entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Jesus did not say he was entrusting the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to each of the Apostles, but to Peter only. This passage in Matthew 16 clearly points out to the reader that Peter was singled out from the rest of the Apostles by Jesus to be the foundation on which Jesus’ Church would be built on. This tells me that Jesus is the builder and Peter is the foundation, and the rest of the Apostles are the blocks set on that foundation. Any builder will say that the blocks are only as strong as the foundation on which it is set on and if the foundation is weak so too will be the blocks on the foundation will be weak. Peter is the keeper of the keys, the one who has the power to open and close, to bind and to loose, to allow and to forbid. The exercise of this responsibility is compared to the disciplinary and doctrinal authority of the rabbis who in Jesus’ time interpeted the OT for the faith and life of the people. This also tells me that Peter is the head of the Church not an Ecumencil council as a supreme authority over the Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

How does the rejection of a legitimate claim become the standard by which the legitimacy is determined? You’ve never been a substitute high school teacher, have you?

By that logic, it is impossible to discern who the pope was during the Great Schism, because the rejection of a “legitimate claim” (and let it not be mistaken that the Avignon papacy and cardinals had a rather legitimate claim, namely that Pope Urban VI was insane) does not help in determining its legitimacy. Of course, on that matter, you would then be in agreement with the many canonists of the time who saw the situation as a sort of gordian knot, since it was impossible to prove one pope to be the real pope (because this would imply that popes are subject to human judgment), nor would it be possible to summon a General Council to settle the matter (because General Councils, according to the canonists of that time, needed to be convened by the pope, and if one man was not recognized as pope, no General Council could be convened, since to do so would recognize that man as pope; likewise both popes could not jointly convene the council, since there cannot be two popes).

And wouldn’t the fact that 80% of the Catholic-Orthodox world has recognized the pope suggest that the clams ARE legitimate? I mean you are in the minority…and even though 4 out of 5 Patriarchs surveyed reject the claims of the Bishop of Rome, you keep reminding me that numbers don’t matter. So, which is it? 4 out or 5 Patriarchs matter while 4 out of 5 Christians don’t?

Why should the claims of the heterodox be of import to us? Does that not smack of religious indifferentism?

Then why did they bother making the appeal? To whom do we appeal for justice but those we believe to be a higher authority than the person who has denied us that justice?

If we must infer from appeals to the bishop of Rome what you wish for us to infer, then we also must infer from appeals made to other bishops that they too possessed the jurisdiction to solve such issues. Therefore, when St. John Chrysostom appealed jointly to the bishops of Rome, Aquileia, and Milan, it is a sign that all three bishops had jurisdiction over the See of Constantinople. When St. Basil likewise appealed on behalf of St. Meletius to St. Athanasius, pleading with him to favor the Meletian party of the Meletian schism, this should be taken as a sign that the bishop of Alexandria had jurisdiction over the See of Antioch. The examples which could be provided are in fact numerous, and the absurdities which would follow from interpreting appeals in this fashion are many, which is why we do not interpret them in such a way.

Nor can we assume that they would reject it, can we? Or do you simply assume that they would because you do? I suspect that they would need to brush up on their theology a bit before rendering judgment, and there would be a lot for them to catch up on since their have been a lot of developments since their day.

Do you assume that they would accept the papal claims because you do? Does not this manner of argumentation strike you as a bit puerile?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t see much justification for dismissing them other than, “This Father has said some complimentary things concerning the successors of Peter, but I don’t like the implications of that, so, I’ll dismiss them.” It sounds silly when you say it out loud like that, but isn’t that the nub of your position?

Why not then take all of the complimentary things fathers have said of other sees and assert that this proves that the other sees too have universal jurisdiction? Why not, for example, expand the petrine powers to Antioch and Alexandria as a consequence of Pope Gregory’s insistence that the three Sees share in the one See of Peter?

If that is true then you must be mightily impressed by the Papacy, for the Pope is the undisputed head of the vast majority of Christendom. If you are concerned purely with actions and not words, then you should acknowledge that God has either willed or allowed the Roman Church to grow FAR beyond anything seen in the East.

That is a nice straw man, but Fr. John is arguing that one ought to look to the praxis of the first millennium in order to understand the prerogatives and limits thereof of the papacy. That does not seem like such an unreasonable suggestion, which is why, I think, Pope Benedict XVI extended just such an invitation to the Orthodox for a dialogue on that matter (not that much came of his offer, I suppose).

None of this proves that the rise of the papacy is illegitimate; it simply establishes your opposition to it. But you said, “I look to what happened…rather than any claims”…well, what happened is that the papacy got stronger, and this is not just a mere claim; it is a historical fact that you yourself have railed against on more than one occasion. So, which is it? Does the “actual” rise of the modern papacy prove its legitimacy or not? Or does the “actual” rejection of that papacy by a minority of people prove its illegitimacy? Isn’t it simply the case that one of these “actual” facts suits you and the other doesn’t?

Numbers do not show the truth of something. Whether the papacy is true comes down to whether historical development of doctrine is legitimate, such that something completely unknown to the apostles can be made binding on all Christian faithful. We obviously disagree with that.

Final question: much has been made over the fact that the EO has been oppressed by Islam and Communism, and I have commended the EO for their faithfulness in the face of such harsh persecution. I’m just curious, though…how might things have developed differently in terms of East-West relations had the Muslims and the Communists allowed the West to interact with Orthodoxy more freely? In other words, if dialogue had been easier for the past 1,000 years or so, do you suppose that MORE EO would be accepting of the modern papacy than understand it now due to having been cut off from the West for so long?

The faith is the faith. Under what conditions it has been incubated does not change the faith, but only how it is represented. If our faiths are different, then no change in external circumstances could ever make what differs to be the same.

 

[prodromos]

But that (the bolded statement above) is itself an interpretation, no?

No, it is actually attempting to remove bias and allow history to interpret. For example, in that page of quotes you posted earlier, their was a quote from St John Chrysostom who had been exiled from his patriarchal throne in Constantinople, writing to Pope Innocent requesting his support in having the situation reversed, and this quote is offered as evidence that Chrysostom believed the Pope had the authority to do this. What those providing this interpretation fail to tell us is that Chrysostom also wrote letters in exactly the same terms to Venerius and Chromatius, the bishops of Milan and Aquileia, the two most important and influential sees in Italy next to Rome. Once you place the quote in its proper historical context, the claims made by those supplying the original quote simply evaporate.
Chrysostom often gets quoted for what he says about Peter, but is ignored when he says the same things about the other apostles. Catholic apologists interpret his statements about Peter as a clear indication of what he believed about the papacy, yet ignore the fact that his life demonstrated no such understanding.

Text without context is pretext.

 

[Randy_Carson]

After reading post #52, I wanted to make this comment: If an Ecumencil Council is the supreme authority in the Church and not the Bishop of Rome, then why would have Jesus say in Matthew 16 " I for my part declare to you, you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… " If as it was posted that an Ecumencil Council has the supreme authority, one would have thought that Jesus would have said instead He would build His Church on the rock of the Apostles instead of on Peter and Jesus would have said I entrust the keys of the Kingdsom of Heaven to all of you Apostles. If I were reading this passage in Matthew’s Gospel for the first time, there is no questoion of what the author of Matthew intended and meant for his readers to understand and the meaning he wished to convey to the reader. That is Jesus was speaking to Peter only telling Peter he was going to be the Rock in which He (Jesus) is going to build His Church, and He(Jesus) entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Jesus did not say he was entrusting the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to each of the Apostles, but to Peter only. This passage in Matthew 16 clearly points out to the reader that Peter was singled out from the rest of the Apostles by Jesus to be the foundation on which Jesus’ Church would be built on. This tells me that Jesus is the builder and Peter is the foundation, and the rest of the Apostles are the blocks set on that foundation. Any builder will say that the blocks are only as strong as the foundation on which it is set on and if the foundation is weak so too will be the blocks on the foundation will be weak. Peter is the keeper of the keys, the one who has the power to open and close, to bind and to loose, to allow and to forbid. The exercise of this responsibility is compared to the disciplinary and doctrinal authority of the rabbis who in Jesus’ time interpeted the OT for the faith and life of the people. This also tells me that Peter is the head of the Church not an Ecumencil council as a supreme authority over the Church.

Haven’t you heard? Peter is not the rock…all the apostles got keys.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By that logic, it is impossible to discern who the pope was during the Great Schism, because the rejection of a “legitimate claim” (and let it not be mistaken that the Avignon papacy and cardinals had a rather legitimate claim, namely that Pope Urban VI was insane) does not help in determining its legitimacy. Of course, on that matter, you would then be in agreement with the many canonists of the time who saw the situation as a sort of gordian knot, since it was impossible to prove one pope to be the real pope (because this would imply that popes are subject to human judgment), nor would it be possible to summon a General Council to settle the matter (because General Councils, according to the canonists of that time, needed to be convened by the pope, and if one man was not recognized as pope, no General Council could be convened, since to do so would recognize that man as pope; likewise both popes could not jointly convene the council, since there cannot be two popes).

But the matter WAS resolved, no?

Why should the claims of the heterodox be of import to us? Does that not smack of religious indifferentism?

Gee, my sentiments exactly. So, where does that leave us?

If we must infer from appeals to the bishop of Rome what you wish for us to infer, then we also must infer from appeals made to other bishops that they too possessed the jurisdiction to solve such issues. Therefore, when St. John Chrysostom appealed jointly to the bishops of Rome, Aquileia, and Milan, it is a sign that all three bishops had jurisdiction over the See of Constantinople. When St. Basil likewise appealed on behalf of St. Meletius to St. Athanasius, pleading with him to favor the Meletian party of the Meletian schism, this should be taken as a sign that the bishop of Alexandria had jurisdiction over the See of Antioch. The examples which could be provided are in fact numerous, and the absurdities which would follow from interpreting appeals in this fashion are many, which is why we do not interpret them in such a way.

I can’t speak to ALL of those incidents, though LionHeart, marduk or someone else may. What I do know is this: appeals are made to appellate courts which have the authority to overturn lower court verdicts. This is commonly understood.

Do you assume that they would accept the papal claims because you do? Does not this manner of argumentation strike you as a bit puerile?

No. I assume that I do because they did.

 

[frjohnmorris]

But that (the bolded statement above) is itself an interpretation, no? It appears from that statement, at least to me, that you are engaging in at least some form of confirmation bias/selective perception in discounting any evidence of the universal jurisdiction of the papacy in the early church because it does not fit the narrative that you have decided is correct. I don’t mean that disrespectfully, and I admit that I probably do the same thing, but you can at least see how such a bias may color your interpretation, correct? If you don’t mind me asking, were you Eastern Orthodox when you started your study of church history or did your study of church history lead you to Orthodoxy?

I do not think that it is difficult at all to show that no ancient Pope exercised universal jurisdiction. Even Milan originally operated as an autocephalous Church free of papal control. I do not know of any serious historian who does not acknowledge that the papacy developed over time. The facts speak for themselves. The form of polity in the ancient Church was conciliar.
I was raised in the Methodist Church. During my adolescence, I started studying Church history and was led to accept a more liturgical form of worship and sacramental approach than was acceptable in the parish of which I was member. As the same time the youth director was a theological liberal who made fun of me because I actually believed in the physical resurrection of Christ. After I heard a man who eventually became a Methodist Bishop preach that because of His human nature Christ sinned, and got yelled at by the Pastor because I asked too many questions, like what is the meaning of Baptism, etc. I remember that I wrote an article for our youth newspaper that argued that we really partake of the Body and Blood of Christ when we take Holy Communion, he really got upset and told that I was advocating Catholicism. I decided to convert to the Episcopal Church when I was 16 in 1964. I was taught a mild form of Anglo-Catholicism. I thought that I had joined a branch of the Catholic Church complete with valid Apostolic Succession. However, after I graduated from college in Oklahoma City and moved to Okla. State U in Stillwater, Okla. St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church was not quite so high church. After I graduated from OSU and got a job teaching at a small Methodist University in Georgetown, Texas, not far from Austin, I found a completely different religion that was definitely Protestant. Because Grace Church was a mission, we were served by professors from the Episcopal seminary in Austin. I got a donation of a chasuble from an outfit called the Mission Vestments Guild, and the professor of liturgics refused to wear it when he served the Eucharist. At that time, the Episcopal Church was going through Prayer Book revision and testing various liturgies on the people. I did not know from one Sunday to the next what I would find when I went to Church. Meanwhile, I was teaching a course on modern Russian history because although my area of specialization had been German history, I also had an area in Russian history on my PhD. I obviously had to speak frequently about the Orthodox Church. My students did not know what I was talking about, so I took the class one Sunday to the Divine Liturgy at St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church, the only Orthodox Church in Austin at that time. My wife and I were blown away by the beauty of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Two years later, we moved to Austin where I taught at Austin Community College. This was 1976, the year that the Episcopalians voted to ordain women. At that time, I had not had my theological education, so did not really understand the theological implications of the matter. I did not like how it was done. A special interest group organized a political campaign, used the ecclesiastical equivalent to civil disobedience, and badgered the General Convention to throw out centuries of Christian belief and to vote to ordain women. They also refused to condemn abortion. I had a very strong respect for human life as a result of research for a book on Nazi Germany. One Sunday morning, my wife and I went to the early Eucharist at our new parish. It left us cold. I told my wife, we still have time, let’s go to the Orthodox Divine Liturgy at St. Elias. We continued that for about a month and then decided to convert to Orthodoxy. Two years later, we moved to Boston where I studied at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. Because of my PhD. I was in an accelerated academic program. Two years later, I was ordained to the Holy Priesthood and sent to a parish. I continued my studies though correspondence and received an MTS degree from Holy Cross. Although it was my studies of Russian history that led me to Orthodoxy, I am Antiochian simply because the only Orthodox Church in Austin at that time was Antiochian Orthodox.

Fr. John

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why not then take all of the complimentary things fathers have said of other sees and assert that this proves that the other sees too have universal jurisdiction? Why not, for example, expand the petrine powers to Antioch and Alexandria as a consequence of Pope Gregory’s insistence that the three Sees share in the one See of Peter?

Oh, I dunno…maybe its because the flowery language used when speaking of Rome is so clearly superlative?

That is a nice straw man, but Fr. John is arguing that one ought to look to the praxis of the first millennium in order to understand the prerogatives and limits thereof of the papacy. That does not seem like such an unreasonable suggestion, which is why, I think, Pope Benedict XVI extended just such an invitation to the Orthodox for a dialogue on that matter (not that much came of his offer, I suppose).

Oh, no, Cavaradossi…we’re just looking at “what actually happened and what power the Popes actually were able to exercise”.

Numbers do not show the truth of something. Whether the papacy is true comes down to whether historical development of doctrine is legitimate, such that something completely unknown to the apostles can be made binding on all Christian faithful. We obviously disagree with that.

If you HAD numbers, you would be whistling a different tune.

The faith is the faith. Under what conditions it has been incubated does not change the faith, but only how it is represented. If our faiths are different, then no change in external circumstances could ever make what differs to be the same.

So, the faith has incubated differently in the West. The fact that it LOOKS different from what you are accustomed to or even from what the ECF’s might have known does not change the fact that it IS the faith. I don’t look quite the same as I used to, either.

And now, three questions for you, Cavaradossi.

1. In another thread, you argued for the development of doctrine by quoting some Orthodox theologians who supported the idea that doctrine can and does develop, correct? Yet, some active posters in these threads continue to deny that doctrine does develop. What is your view on this?
2. In another thread, quotes from Church Fathers were introduced which clearly indicated that the Fathers viewed Peter, and not his confession, as the Rock in Mt. 16:18-19. What is your view on this?
3. Finally, if it is possible that Peter is the rock (foundation for the universal church) and if doctrines (including the doctrine of the papacy) does develop, is it possible to conclude that over time the doctrine of the modern papacy developed based upon the authority given to Peter by Jesus Himself?

Before you answer, consider that I’m not asking you to agree with (3); I’m only asking you to evaluate the logic of if (1) and (2) then (3). Is it logical?

Thanks.

 

[spina1953]

Haven’t you heard? Peter is not the rock…all the apostles got keys.

Dear Randy Carson: Sorry about that. I forgot that Peter is not the Rock. I guess the Catholic Bible I used did not say all the Apostles got keys. Must be something in the water.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, I dunno…maybe its because the flowery language used when speaking of Rome is so clearly superlative?

As opposed to all that flowery language that is plain? (What does this comment mean?)

If you HAD numbers, you would be whistling a different tune.

Why assume that everyone would argue as you do? In her 2005 book Christianity in Iraq, Iraqi Catholic author Dr. Suha Rassam asserts that at one point 25% of all world Christianity owed its allegiance to the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, not Rome (she, despite being Catholic herself, specifies “not Rome”, so obviously she understands the difference between recognizing numerical superiority and truth). At other points in time, previously solidly Catholic Iberia was majority-Muslim, as is historically quite Latin-aligned Lebanon to this very day. You still want to try to make any kind of argument from numbers? Check out mass attendance statistics in the Roman Church’s European heartland and get back to us.

So, the faith has incubated differently in the West. The fact that it LOOKS different from what you are accustomed to or even from what the ECF’s might have known does not change the fact that it IS the faith.

So there doesn’t have to be any sort of continuity with the faith once delivered to the saints, then? Interesting. (Your analogy to your own aging doesn’t work, by the way; the faith is either timeless or it is false.)

I’d like to think that if St. John Chrysostom came to a modern EO liturgy, or St. Basil or St. Gregory or St. James to a modern OO liturgy, they would probably be quite comfortable. What then of the modern Latin liturgy? If the venerable Bede or Bp. Osmund of Salisbury or even St. Augustine were to drop in on your average RC mass, what do you think they would say about the faith being lived through it? About its form? About its fidelity to its predecessor, the Tridentine Mass? (Which itself is not very old anyway; 1570 is definitely the modern era so far as church history is concerned.)

 

[frjohnmorris]

And now, three questions for you, Cavaradossi.

I am going to jump in and respond to your questions.

1. In another thread, you argued for the development of doctrine by quoting some Orthodox theologians who supported the idea that doctrine can and does develop, correct? Yet, some active posters in these threads continue to deny that doctrine does develop. What is your view on this?
   I RESPOND: Doctrine does not develop beyond that which was revealed by Christ and His Apostles. The standard is the Faith as practiced by the ancient Church of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils which was built on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. Sometimes, the Church has had to set the boundaries between heresy and sound doctrine, but this must always be an affirmation of the Faith and practices of the Holy Tradition of the ancient undivided Church. The ancient undivided Church had no all powerful papacy. Instead, the Church operated using the example of Acts 15 through councils. I agree that numbers alone prove nothing, but when you speak of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, you are speaking of Apostolic sees who received the Holy Tradition directly from the Apostles. If these ancient Apostolic sees did not recognize papal authority over them during the age of the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, does that not show that universal papal jurisdiction is not an Apostolic doctrine? If an Ecumenical Council acted as the highest authority of the Church then, why not now? If conciliarism was the polity of the Church for the first 1,000 years of the history of the Church, why should the Church abandon conciliarism and accept papal supremacy in its place today?
2. In another thread, quotes from Church Fathers were introduced which clearly indicated that the Fathers viewed Peter, and not his confession, as the Rock in Mt. 16:18-19. What is your view on this?

I RESPOND: If we agree that the Church is built on St. Peter it is necessary to consider the teachings of such Fathers as St.Cyprian who argue that all Bishops are successors to St. Peter. He wrote,
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.
He also wrote, “And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.
Firmilianus also taught that all Bishops are successors to St. Peter., “And (in sec. 16), further, he sets forth, for the Easterners, the same theory of unity which Cyprian had expounded for the West; viz., the unity of the episcopate. He interprets the parallel texts (Matthew xvi. 19 and John xx. 22, 23) of bestowal in the same manner. His idea is, that, had the latter bestowal been the only one, the apostles might have felt that each had only a share in the same respectively; while, as it stands, there is one episcopate only: in effect, only “one bishop;” each apostle and every bishop, by “vicarious ordination,” holding for his flock in his own See all that Christ gave to Peter himself, save only the personal privilege of a leader in opening the door to the Gentiles, and in teaching the apostles the full meaning of the gift.

1. Finally, if it is possible that Peter is the rock (foundation for the universal church) and if doctrines (including the doctrine of the papacy) does develop, is it possible to conclude that over time the doctrine of the modern papacy developed based upon the authority given to Peter by Jesus Himself?

I RESPOND: If the doctrine of papal supremacy developed over time, how do we know that it was a divinely inspired development? If this development were from God, would not God have also led the successor to St. Peter in Antioch, the successor to St. Mark in Alexandria and the successor to St. James in Jerusalem to accept it? since 4 out of the 5 ancient Patriarchates never accepted it does this not show that it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, but the ambitions of the Popes that led to the development of this doctrine, especially since all historians agree that a forged document, The Donation of Constantine, played a major role in the development of the claims of the papacy.
If it is necessary to accept the authority of the Pope as successor to St. Peter, with universal jurisdiction, one would find this teaching in the St. John of Damascus’ “On the Orthodox Faith.” Yet there is no mention of this doctrine. I checked the works of other Fathers such as Sts. Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil and found nothing that can be used to justify the teaching of the modern Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy. One would think that obedience to the Bishop of Rome were so important, these Fathers of the Church would mention it.

Fr. John

 

[Cavaradossi]

But the matter WAS resolved, no?

Only if you are willing to concede that both acceptance and non-acceptance of a claim has no bearing on its legitimacy. But if that is to be conceded, then historical evidence (which so far has been the mainstay of the arguments used by Roman Catholic posters here) on the whole is inadmissible, meaning that we would have to turn directly to reasoned argument.

I can’t speak to ALL of those incidents, though LionHeart, marduk or someone else may. What I do know is this: appeals are made to appellate courts which have the authority to overturn lower court verdicts. This is commonly understood.

So therefore, the bishop of Alexandria had jurisdiction over Antioch, and the bishops of Rome, Aquileia, and Milan had jurisdiction over Constantinople.

No. I assume that I do because they did.

A meaningless tautology. With this sort of thinking, nobody is in any need to justify their readings of the Church fathers.

Oh, I dunno…maybe its because the flowery language used when speaking of Rome is so clearly superlative?

Yes, I suppose then that we should just discount lines like St. Basil calling Antioch the head of the Church, or Justinian doing the same with the Church of Constantinople in the Codex Iustinianus. We should also throw out the title Judge of the Universe for the bishop of Alexandria, along with the thirteenth Apostle, and Patriarch of Patriarchs. But when it comes to the titles of Rome, woe be to anybody who should so dare to discount Rome being called the Apostolic See (despite the fact that this title was historically used also to address the see of Alexandria) or any other flowery title.

Oh, no, Cavaradossi…we’re just looking at “what actually happened and what power the Popes actually were able to exercise”.

The words and the praxis have their own places, and their own relationship with one another. It is, in that respect, just like the interpretation of the canons in that we need to look at what was actually done in practice. Truly, there is no need to make a strawman of Fr. John’s statement.

If you HAD numbers, you would be whistling a different tune.

We are not all so churlish as to think that numbers can manufacture truth.

So, the faith has incubated differently in the West. The fact that it LOOKS different from what you are accustomed to or even from what the ECF’s might have known does not change the fact that it IS the faith.

Quite the assumption to make.

1. In another thread, you argued for the development of doctrine by quoting some Orthodox theologians who supported the idea that doctrine can and does develop, correct? Yet, some active posters in these threads continue to deny that doctrine does develop. What is your view on this?

You refer, I assume, to the excerpt written by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky which I posted a while back. I think that perhaps you should read with a bit of care, because Pomazansky basically denies that the deposit of faith can be added to in any fashion by historical development of doctrine, which is what the Orthodox posters are rejecting when they reject the development of doctrine. The content of revelation can be expounded upon with greater precision, but to add something to the deposit of faith by rational thought which previously was unknown is impossible.

1. In another thread, quotes from Church Fathers were introduced which clearly indicated that the Fathers viewed Peter, and not his confession, as the Rock in Mt. 16:18-19. What is your view on this?

What fathers explicitly deny that it was St. Peter’s confession? The Fathers that I know of remark generally that the confession can be thought of as the rock because the words of St. Peter, that confession of faith, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God is the foundation of the Church, for wheresoever this faith is truly confessed, the gates of hades shall never prevail, for the confession of St. Peter is itself life-giving, capable of saving us from death.

Other fathers do remark that St. Peter is also the rock. But this must be understood, as Pope St. Leo remarks in his fourth sermon, as pointing to the unity of the Church in Peter. For the keys of heaven and the power to bind and loose are shared by all pastors of the Church but were given to Peter in a unique way (the implication being that he received the power first) in order to commend the unity of the Church. St. Augustine agrees with this idea in his exegesis of John 21, remarking that Christ speaks to Peter alone not because the other Apostles were not meant to feed his sheep, but in order to commend the unity of the Apostles and the Church. The primacy of Peter, at least according to these exegetes is not in the giving of special prerogatives above what the Apostles themselves were also given, but in Christ giving these powers to him first in order to commend the unity of the Church.

1. Finally, if it is possible that Peter is the rock (foundation for the universal church) and if doctrines (including the doctrine of the papacy) does develop, is it possible to conclude that over time the doctrine of the modern papacy developed based upon the authority given to Peter by Jesus Himself?

I do not agree with the type of development of doctrines which would be necessary for this syllogism to work. The way we reflect upon revelation can change and attain greater precision, but nothing itself can be added by rational thought to revelation itself. The deposit of faith can never be increased by any process of development

 

[Randy_Carson]

And now, three questions for you, Cavaradossi.

How well did Peter and the boys understand the Trinity? And were they down with one spiration or two? How about the hypostatic union? How many natures did Jesus have? How many wills? Had they reached any conclusions about Mary as the Mother of God, yet? When you receive the Eucharist under one species only, should it be the body or the blood? And do you receive both the body and the blood even if only one species is received? Baptism of infants - yes or no? (Tertullian preferred to wait two hundred years later.) Circumcision of the Gentiles - required or not required? Oh, wait…they got that one decided fairly early on.

So, doctrines were being debated DURING and AFTER the lifetimes of the Apostles. Doctrine develops as our understanding of revelation develops.

The standard is the Faith as practiced by the ancient Church of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils which was built on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. Sometimes, the Church has had to set the boundaries between heresy and sound doctrine, but this must always be an affirmation of the Faith and practices of the Holy Tradition of the ancient undivided Church. The ancient undivided Church had no all powerful papacy. Instead, the Church operated using the example of Acts 15 through councils. I agree that numbers alone prove nothing, but when you speak of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, you are speaking of Apostolic sees who received the Holy Tradition directly from the Apostles. If these ancient Apostolic sees did not recognize papal authority over them during the age of the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, does that not show that universal papal jurisdiction is not an Apostolic doctrine?

No, it merely shows that our understanding of the full authority of the Papacy had not reached full bloom.

If an Ecumenical Council acted as the highest authority of the Church then, why not now? If conciliarism was the polity of the Church for the first 1,000 years of the history of the Church, why should the Church abandon conciliarism and accept papal supremacy in its place today?

Well…if you have read MarcoPolo’s blog wherein he cites Kallistos Ware’s discussion of the Ravenna Statement and Canon 34 and offers a way forward, perhaps it’s not so all or nothing for either side.

2. In another thread, quotes from Church Fathers were introduced which clearly indicated that the Fathers viewed Peter, and not his confession, as the Rock in Mt. 16:18-19. What is your view on this?

I RESPOND: If we agree that the Church is built on St. Peter it is necessary to consider the teachings of such Fathers as St.Cyprian who argue that all Bishops are successors to St. Peter. He wrote,

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.

Yeah…Peter has the keys…and from that flows the authority of Christ to the Church.

He also wrote,

“And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.

Firmilianus also taught that all Bishops are successors to St. Peter., “And (in sec. 16), further, he sets forth, for the Easterners, the same theory of unity which Cyprian had expounded for the West; viz., the unity of the episcopate. He interprets the parallel texts (Matthew xvi. 19 and John xx. 22, 23) of bestowal in the same manner. His idea is, that, had the latter bestowal been the only one, the apostles might have felt that each had only a share in the same respectively; while, as it stands, there is one episcopate only: in effect, only “one bishop;” each apostle and every bishop, by “vicarious ordination,” holding for his flock in his own See all that Christ gave to Peter himself, save only the personal privilege of a leader in opening the door to the Gentiles, and in teaching the apostles the full meaning of the gift.

And I suppose that there is a sense in which this is true – though I’m simply attempting some charity here, because I have no clue as to how that might actually be true. But as you know, there is no verse of scripture wherein the other apostles receive 11 more keys. Or would it have been 10? Or 14 if you count Paul and Barnabas? At any rate, after having listened to all of her sons, the Church has infallibly chosen to follow another path than those suggested by these quotes.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

3. Finally, if it is possible that Peter is the rock (foundation for the universal church) and if doctrines (including the doctrine of the papacy) does develop, is it possible to conclude that over time the doctrine of the modern papacy developed based upon the authority given to Peter by Jesus Himself?

I RESPOND: If the doctrine of papal supremacy developed over time, how do we know that it was a divinely inspired development?

Because God cannot allow His Church to teach error.

If this development were from God, would not God have also led the successor to St. Peter in Antioch, the successor to St. Mark in Alexandria and the successor to St. James in Jerusalem to accept it? since 4 out of the 5 ancient Patriarchates never accepted it does this not show that it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, but the ambitions of the Popes that led to the development of this doctrine, especially since all historians agree that a forged document, The Donation of Constantine, played a major role in the development of the claims of the papacy.

Weren’t these same sees the ones that were constantly embracing one heresy after the other? And you look to them for orthodoxy with regard to the papacy?

If it is necessary to accept the authority of the Pope as successor to St. Peter, with universal jurisdiction, one would find this teaching in the St. John of Damascus’ “On the Orthodox Faith.” Yet there is no mention of this doctrine. I checked the works of other Fathers such as Sts. Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil and found nothing that can be used to justify the teaching of the modern Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy. One would think that obedience to the Bishop of Rome were so important, these Fathers of the Church would mention it.

Unless, of course, it was ACTUALLY there, but you have interpreted it according to your own presuppositions.

Fr. John, I see this all the time in my discussions with Protestants…they have spent their whole lives assuming one thing about John 6, and then by the mercy of God, it hits them one day like a ton of bricks - Jesus really is talking about his flesh being real food. But before that, they sail past those verses a million times never assuming anything other than a metaphorical meaning.

I think a whole lot of that is at work here.

But I do appreciate the time you took to answer the questions I asked Cavaradossi.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So therefore, the bishop of Alexandria had jurisdiction over Antioch, and the bishops of Rome, Aquileia, and Milan had jurisdiction over Constantinople.

If they were considered higher courts, sure. But only one was considered the highest court.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A meaningless tautology. With this sort of thinking, nobody is in any need to justify their readings of the Church fathers.

I’m simply saying that some really smart people have been led by the Holy Spirit to infallible conclusions regarding the Church. It is what it is because God promised to build it and did.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We are not all so churlish as to think that numbers can manufacture truth.

I do understand that. But let’s not pretend that if the shoes were on the other feet, you wouldn’t be crowing about How the Orthodox Church built Eastern Civilization.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Quite the assumption to make.

Ah. I forgot. You are in the camp which believes that Catholics are of a different faith than true Christians.

Tell me, are any Catholics saved? Or will only Orthodox be in heaven?

 

[Cavaradossi]

If they were considered higher courts, sure. But only one was considered the highest court.

Except that they were not considered to have jurisdiction in those areas (and there were even canons enacted which expressly forbade such conduct). The absurdity of assuming that appeals imply jurisdiction should give you pause before your make arguments based on that premise.

I’m simply saying that some really smart people have been led by the Holy Spirit to infallible conclusions regarding the Church. It is what it is because God promised to build it and did.

Yes, so which group of “really smart people” are we to look to? For there were also plenty of “really smart” heretics.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You refer, I assume, to the excerpt written by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky which I posted a while back. I think that perhaps you should read with a bit of care, because Pomazansky basically denies that the deposit of faith can be added to in any fashion by historical development of doctrine, which is what the Orthodox posters are rejecting when they reject the development of doctrine. The content of revelation can be expounded upon with greater precision, but to add something to the deposit of faith by rational thought which previously was unknown is impossible.

Thank you, Cavaradossi. I was aware of the distinction. And YOU are aware that Catholics AGREE that nothing can be added to the faith?

So, neither of us supports additions and neither of us denies development. Agreed?

I asked this before, but I do not know if I received a response: Consider the following:

1. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. (I know you prefer theotokos and have some slight differences on this, but just play along, okay? Make whatever transpositions you need to for the sake of discussion.)

Now, the apostles would have known one and two for sure. Do you think they would have arrived at three during their lifetimes? And if not, would this be considered a development or an addition?

But recall that one voice is constantly denying that doctrine develops and that Orthodox doctrine is “enshrined”. Well, the last couple of shrines I visited contained dead bodies, and I was castigated for referencing this ossification when I quoted Soloviev elsewhere.

Was Soloviev wrong?